zlacker

[return to "A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy"]
1. TeeMas+A45[view] [source] 2023-09-27 03:58:21
>>rossan+(OP)
"What happened is that during my literature review, I disturbingly realized that what I had been told at the hospital, namely that subdural and retinal hemorrhage in infants are almost always caused by violent shaking even in the absence of external evidence of trauma, was an assertion based on very weak scientific foundations. And yet, this “shaking hypothesis” (sometimes referred to as the theory of the “triad”, since encephalopathy is frequently associated with the other two signs, subdural and retinal hemorrhage) has been taught as though it was a proven fact to generations of physicians all over the world. Every year, thousands of children are removed from their parents, and thousands are prosecuted, convicted, and even incarcerated, on the basis of this assertion. Law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer qualifies SBS/AHT as a “medical diagnosis of murder”. The very least we should expect for an assertion this powerful is that it should be based on reliable scientific foundations."

This is why using experts for advice is great but everyone should still be encouraged to do their own research.

◧◩
2. kwhite+uZ5[view] [source] 2023-09-27 12:03:35
>>TeeMas+A45
> using experts for advice is great

If they are experts. The problem lies in distinguishing those who actually do have expertise in the field in question from those who merely think that they do and can persuade others that they do.

In many medical contexts there is no such thing as an expert because the data simply doesn't exist, they are sometimes simply more capable than the general public.

◧◩◪
3. TeeMas+WI6[view] [source] 2023-09-27 15:37:21
>>kwhite+uZ5
Actual experts I talked too can tell you easily why the opinion they have are true and the evidence it is based on. They are also very good at vulgarization.
[go to top]